Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1382 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services or not - Insurance on Business Credit Shield Policy - insurance policy taken by the appellant was related to the manufacturing activity or not - post sale activities - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Rule 2(l) ibid has defined the term ‘input service’ to mean any service used by a manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products up to the place of removal. The said definition clause also provides the inclusive category of services, which can be considered as input services - The disputed service availed by the appellant is in relation to post sale activities, in the sense that if the buyer of goods manufactured by the appellant defaulted in making payment, then the insurance company as per the policy requirement, should compensate the appellant for realization of the sale proceeds. The policy note issue by the insurance company as indicated above clearly specifies that the policy offered by them to the appellant is towards realization of the insured debt in respect of the goods delivered to the buyers. Since, the disputed service availed by the appellant was not in relation to manufacture of the final products and does not fall under the inclusive part of definition of input service, such service cannot be considered as input service and cenvat credit of service tax paid on such service should not be available to the appellant. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- SCN was issued by the department within the normal period of limitation from the audit of records by the department. Since, the irregularities in availment of cenvat credit was detected by the department upon auditing the books of accounts maintained by the appellant, initiation of present proceedings are in conformity with the cenvat statute and the same cannot be held to be time barred. There are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|